Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements

What the science says...

Lindzen's analysis has several flaws, such as only looking at data in the tropics. A number of independent studies using near-global satellite data find positive feedback and high climate sensitivity.

Climate Myth...

Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. (Lindzen 2009)

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much our climate responds to an energy imbalance. The most common definition is the change in global temperature if the amount of atmospheric CO2 was doubled. If there were no feedbacks, climate sensitivity would be around 1°C. But we know there are a number of feedbacks, both positive and negative. So how do we determine the net feedback? An empirical solution is to observe how our climate responds to temperature change. We have satellite measurements of the radiation budget and surface measurements of temperature. Putting the two together should give us an indication of net feedback.

Lindzen et al also analysed satellite measurements of outgoing radiation over these periods. As short-term tropical sea surface temperatures are largely driven by the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the change in outward radiation offers an insight into how climate responds to changing temperature. Their analysis found that when it gets warmer, there was more outgoing radiation escaping to space. They concluded that net feedback is negative and our planet has a low climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C.

Debunked by Murphy

Another major flaw in Lindzen's analysis is that they attempt to calculate global climate sensitivity from tropical data. The tropics are not a closed system - a great deal of energy is exchanged between the tropics and subtropics. To properly calculate global climate sensitivity, global observations are required.

This is confirmed by another paper published in early May (Murphy 2010). This paper finds that small changes in the heat transport between the tropics and subtropics can swamp the tropical signal. They conclude that climate sensitivity must be calculated from global data.

Debunked by Chung

In addition, another paper reproduced the analysis from Lindzen et al 2009 and compared it to results using near-global data (Chung et al 2010). The near-global data find net positive feedback and the authors conclude that the tropical ocean is not an adequate region for determining global climate sensitivity.

Debunked by Dessler

Dessler (2011) found a number of errors in Lindzen and Choi (2009) (slightly revised as Lindzen & Choi [2011]). First, Lindzen and Choi's mathematical formula to calculate the Earth's energy budget may violate the laws of thermodynamics - allowing for the impossible situation where ocean warming is able to cause ocean warming. Secondly, Dessler finds that the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times largerthan the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2 - an order of magnitude too small.

However, Dessler also plots climate model results and finds that they also simulate negative time regression slopes when cloud changes lead temperature changes. Crucially, sea surface temperatures are specified by the models. This means that in these models, clouds respond to sea surface temperature changes, but not vice-versa. This suggests that the lagged result first found by Lindzen and Choi is actually a result of variations in atmospheric circulation driven by changes in sea surface temperature, and contrary to Lindzen's claims, is not evidence that clouds are causing climate change, because in the models which successfully replicate the cloud-temperature lag, temperatures cannot be driven by cloud changes.

Lindzen and Choi first submitted LC11 to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after adding some data from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES).

PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described.

As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented,

"The paper is based on...basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity"

Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks.

Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not reflected in the tropics.

Inadequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results.

Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler).

Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so.

As a result of these fundamental problems, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.

Wholly Debunked

A full understanding of climate requires we take into account the full body of evidence. In the case of climate sensitivity and satellite data, it requires a global dataset, not just the tropics. Stepping back to take a broader view, a single paper must also be seen in the context of the full body of peer-reviewed research. A multitude of papers looking at different periods in Earth's history independently and empirically converge on a consistent answer - climate sensitivity is around 3°C implying net positive feedback.

I'm not backtracking - I'm clarifying. The 396 W/m^2 power flux at the surface already has factored into it the thermals and latent heat transfer. Without these two processes moving heat away from the surface into the atmosphere, the surface power would be about 493 W/m^2 for a temperature of about 305K. This is what the diagram is depicting.

I suggest that you do some 3-d atmospheric simulations yourself. Start with nominal H20/O3/CH4 and simulate at 280 ppm and 560 ppm of CO2 and see the difference. The incremental absorption is about 3.7 W/m^2 and not 7.4 W/m^2.

In a very limited sense the 3.7 W/m^2 represents a reduction in power leaving the top of the troposphere, but it fails to account for the delayed release of the incrementally absorbed power back into space. As I pointed out before, even if the atmosphere absorbed 100%, 50% would still leave the planet. I challenge to you to come up with a terrestrial counter example of this. I already explained why Venus is different.

re 396

Do you agree that a thermal is half of a vertical circulation current whose purpose is to redistribute energy within the atmosphere? Do you agree that evaporation/weather is another circulation current operating across both vertical and horizontal directions? If these are important to the radiative balance, then why are oceanic and atmospheric circulation currents not included as well. These serve the same purpose as moving energy around the thermal mass.

The fact is that the only effect non radiative energy transfer has on the energy balance is establishing the conditions for clouds to block as much as 1/2 of the surface radiation from leaving the planet. The proportion of clouds then sets the ratio of warm surface emissions and cold cloud emissions such that the radiative balance is maintained.

The physical feedback system is controlling the planets energy balance. The hypothetical feedback system proposed by the IPCC controls the surface temperature. This is the source of the disconnect because the boundary conditions and output of the hypothetical feedback system are predetermined by the physical feedback system. The hypothetical system can be forced to look correct at a specific operating point, but is useless for how the system responds to change.

Mr White (co2isnotevil), in your div2 paper you state: "A further constraint of Conservation Of Energy is that the global net non radiative flux between the atmosphere and the surface must be zero in the steady state if the radiative flux is also zero. While radiative flux to and from the surface can be traded off against non radiative flux, it makes no difference to the overall radiative balance."

Your prior diagram shows a radiative energy balance that excludes the latent heat and conductive (thermal driven) transfers from the surface to the atmosphere. (it is also missing the solar short wave absorption by the atmosphere). In your statement above you are declaring that the non radiative flux is zero. Can you quantify an atmosphere to surface transfer that is non radiative that balances the latent heat and conductive transfers?

Can you also explain how you arrive at A=292 as a fraction of the 385 radiative flux from the surface? Thank you.

The A does not include thermals and latent heat, again, thermals and latent heat only serve to move power around the Earth's thermal mass and do not participate directly in the radiative balance. To the extent that the thermal power emitted by clouds comes from evaporated water, there is a second order connection, but relative to the radiative balance, only radiation matters. In the big picture of the thermodynamic balance of the planet, clouds selectively block surface power such that the power leaving the planet is equal to the power arriving.

Relative to the Trentbert picture, thermals and latent heat are returned in his mythical 'back radiation'. This is very misleading as most of the power returned to the surface is kinetic and not radiative.

Only photons matter at the boundary between the Earth and space. Why is this so hard to understand?

Response: [muoncounter] This thread is about climate sensitivity as derived in the Lindzen and Choi paper. Further discussion of the specifics of a third party website do not belong here. Please take your continuing conversation regarding how this or that particular are derived elsewhere.

To stay on topic, lets address the first paragraph of my first post at #297. Read that and then answer the following questions.

Why don't you complain about homogenization techniques applied to a small data set with high uncertainty which predicts a high sensitivity, yet do complain when more deterministic homogenization techniques are applied to a much larger data set with less uncertainty and which predicts a low sensitivity? Are you objecting to the uncertainty in the analysis or are you objecting to the conclusion?

Lindzen and Choi's sensitivity result has a high dependence on their (arbitrary looking) start/end dates. The tropical region is not (as they seem to have treated it) a closed system, see comments in the header regarding Murphy 2010, where even small changes in tropical/polar heat exchange swamp L&C's results, that global data gives quite different results (Chung 2010), plus the multiple studies from both models and empirical data that contradict L&C's low sensitivity.

Does anyone have a link to the updated Lindzen and Choi 2010 paper? I believe the original was criticized for cherry picking data points, but when they re-did in 2010 using "all points" the result was the same.

The Chung et all paper is not freely available, but based on the abstract, it makes a very weak case by trying to connect the radiative dampening rate with positive feedback.

The issue with the temperature measurements is homogenization (Hansen Lebedeff 1987) which incorrectly justifies the use of a very small sample set to discern trends, which tends to encourage cherry picking.

My point is that none of the surface temperature reconstructions which predict large sensitivities or large warming cover more than about 1% of the planet and interpolate everything else. If you want to complain about the 30% coverage of L&C, you better start complaining about all reconstructions that do not start with 100% coverage.

”Why is the Lindzen and Choi resulting sensitivity consistent with how each 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun is treated at the surface, but the IPCC models that predict a 3 C sensitivity are not?”
The answer is that Lindzen and Choi chose to make an erroneous analysis that gave them a result that they wittingly, or unwittingly, were aiming for. There are virtually an infinite number of ways of obtaining a false result in science RW1. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis is simply wrong as has been well established by several groups of atmospheric physicists (and see account in the introductory description of this thread):

So you're really asking the wrong questions RW1. You should be pondering:

(i) Why do people chose to believe analyses that are clearly and objectively flawed?

(ii) How can one seriously maintain allegiance to an analysis of Earth climate sensitivity that is woefully inconsistent with straightforward empirical evidence? Remember that Lindzen’s, and the flawed analysis of the website from which you have sourced your analysis, come up with a climate sensitivity (~0.6 oC of Earth surface warming for a radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric [CO2]?) that is simply at odds with a vast body of empirical analysis, as explained here, and here, and here and here.

(iii) How can one possibly obtain a realistic estimate of the Earth climate sensitivity (the Earth surface temperature response at equilibrium resulting from a radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric [CO2]), from transient temperature responses to transient variations in forcing (seasonal variations in forcing resulting from the earth’s rapid passage around the sun)?

(iv) why would one raise a false argument that "the IPCC models that predict a 3 C sensitivity are not" consistent with empirical observations, when the models (they're not "IPCC models, RW1, but the models of a large body of physicists) are clearly entirely consistent with empirical observations (e.g. 20th century warming) as indicated in the links in (i) above)?

(i) the very specific flaw (of Lindzen and Choi) of attempting to treat the tropics as a closed system for attempting to assess readiative flux responses to changes in surface temperature (when the flows of energy to higher latitudes dominate outgoing (space-directed) energy flows by factors of 10-fold)...

and:

(ii) the fact that Earth temperature measures are sampled at discrete points on the surface.

A physicist should really be able to spot the logical flaw!

In selecting to analyze data covering only the tropics (20o N to 20o S) Lindzen and Choi omit not only the massive bulk of the Earth's surface, but the regions of the Earth to which massive flows of solar energy insolating the tropics flow to higher latitudes in the shape of air and sea currents.

Note that you are ignoring the particularly dismal flaw of Lindzen and Choi which is the cherry-picking of periods of temperature change (see top article above). As a scientist you really should be appalled at the level of false analysis.

On the other hand the Earth temperature measurements sample virtually the entire world (with only the Arctic and Antarctic poorly sampled) and there is a huge body of evidence that:

(i) the Earth surface temperature measurement is robust to at least 5 independent analyses (by teams in the US, UK, Japan and Europe),

(ii) the Earth surface temperature is robust to large reduction of temperature stations (e.g. the US temperature data is hardly changed when selecting a small subselection of what a climate contarian group have asserted are the "good" set of stations by their own criteria). In other words the Earth surface temperature is over-determined and the reason for this is quite well established (it relates to the well-characterized observation of the spatial correlation of surface temperature anomalies over distances of several hundreds of kilometres).

Would you consider a pot of water at thermal equilibrium on the stove with the burner underneath at a fixed setting as being analogous to the oceans of the Earth (the water in the pot) and the current amount of average radiative forcing acting on them (the burner underneath)?

It's unfortunate that a moderator has deleted the last two comments (co2isnotevil's and mine) since these get right to the crux of the issue. It's directly relevant to the Lindzen and Choi analysis and to all attempts to establish equilibrium Earth response climate sensitivity by analysis of transient responses to forcings.

I'll post the relevant bit of my deleted post. If the moderator considers this non-relevant (discussion of climate response times to forcing) then something's badly amiss!

co2isnotevil: "The Earth responds far more quickly to changes in forcing than you think."

Yes, it responds immediately to changes in forcing. However in establishing the climate sensitivity we are interested in the response when the system has come to equilibrium with the forcing. This is a fundamental error that your website and RW1 are simply not addressing.

co2isnotevil: "The climate system's time constant is on the order of 2 months"

That's horribly incorrect. Even the most generous models of Earth climate response to forcing arrive at a time constant [time for the response to achieve (1-1/e)-fold magnitude of its equilibrium response] of around 7.5 years (see discussion here here, for example).

Of course there are several time constants of relevance (the atmosphere responds faster than the land surface which responds faster than the ocean surface...the response of the deep oceans is very slow indeed).

It's very easy to see that this must be the case, and must be considered for determination of the climate sensitivity. The sea and mountain ice response to warming is a significant part of the climate sensitivity. As sea and land melts in a warming world the Earth albedo reduces. It's not possible to maintain the ludicrous notion that this response comes to equilibrium with a time constant of 2 months! Try 20 or 30 years (and maybe 100-1000 years for polar ice....

No. L&C do not treat the tropics as a closed system. They treat it as part of a closed system whose specific behavior is linked to the behavior of the whole. Besides, the specific complaint was that the coverage was only between -20 and 20 degrees latitude and not that they were treating that region as a closed system.

Have you even looked at full coverage surface temperature reconstructions? Consider the ISCCP reconstruction which is exactly as you claim. Here is the monthly global temperature plot. You might notice the spike around 10/01 which was caused when the transition from NOAA-14 to NOAA-16 didn't fit within the ability of Rossow's code to properly adapt and the baseline shifted. I pointed this out more than 3 years ago and while Rossow acknowledged the error privately, it has yet to appear in the formal errata and this is a bigger error than anything else reported. Here is the same reconstruction with 5 year averaging applied. In both plots, the red is the monthly temperature and the black dotted line is the running 12 month average of the red line. Notice how when 5 year averaging is applied a 1 month data anomaly suddenly appears as a multi year temperature trend?

Hmm. It seems that Hansen's data is showing a cooling trend? How odd ,,,

I also suggest you review a little about control theory, time constants and how they operate. If the planet was as sluggish as you claim, then how do you explain the global temperature changing by over 3C during a 12 month period? A time constant of 7.5 years says that it takes 7.5 years for 37% of the equilibrium change to occur. Do you not believe that the Sun forces the climate? How can you even explain seasonal change?

The ebb and flow of glacial ice works on a somewhat larger scale, but if you're seriously trying to claim that the intrinsic 0.5C or so from doubling CO2 will melt enough ice to affect a 3C global temperature rise, you better go back and run your numbers again. Even your inflated 1.1C intrinsic effect is not enough. We are pretty close to minimum ice, as we are during every interglacial epoch, and as such, there is not enough ice to melt and cause your hypothetical 3C rise. Ice related feedback is a clamped effect and you can't equate the effects of ice melting as we are leaving maximum ice with those with ice melting when we are already at minimum ice.

I agree with Chris that deleting those comments is counter productive to the thread. The response time of the climate system is intimately related to the sensitivity. High sensitivities are claimed only when then can also claim that the affect is deferred decades into the future because we can't discern from the data what current CO2 concentrations are supposed to have done. For example, there is no monotonic trend corresponding to the CO2 trend in the temperature data.

"I also suggest you review a little about control theory, time constants and how they operate. If the planet was as sluggish as you claim, then how do you explain the global temperature changing by over 3C during a 12 month period? A time constant of 7.5 years says that it takes 7.5 years for 37% of the equilibrium change to occur. Do you not believe that the Sun forces the climate? How can you even explain seasonal change?"

(i) Note that the time constant is the time for ~63% (1-1/e) of the equilibrium response to be achieved (not 37%).

(ii) The global temperature changes seasonally due to the large excess of N. hemisphere land compared to the S. hemisphere and the lower heat capacity of land compared to ocean. In other words one of the more rapid elements of the climate system (land warming) dominates when the N hemisphere is tilted towards the sun even although this occurs during the short period that the Earth moves to and from aphelion. Temperature changes of the vast S. hemisphere oceans occur much more slowly than N hemisphere land.

(ii) The seasonal changes result from varying insolation patterns (with a lesser effect from the change in surface solar irradiance due to orbital eccentricity).

(iv) this is all obvious. Clearly if the Earth were to come to a grinding stop in its orbit at aphelion and sit there rotating as normal, the N. hemisphere would warm further. However the orbital properties of the Earth aren't very relevant to persistent changes in forcings that are fundamental to determination of climate sensitivities. That's because the orbitally-paced sinusoidal insolation occurs more rapidly than the various elements of the climate system can equilibrate with the changing forcings, and thus average out on time scales relevant to establishing the Earth's equilibrium response to forcing.

"...intrinsic 0.5C or so from doubling CO2 will melt enough ice to affect a 3C global temperature rise..."

That's just argumentation co2isnotevil. To establish the physical response requires an effort at rigorous analysis. The intrinsic response to a forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric [CO2] is of the order of 1 oC and then one needs to factor in the water vapour feedback (lots of evidence that this is positive and rather significant) and land and sea ice melt. There is a vast science on this (e.g. check to loink in post 413).

One of the essential problems that you and RW1 have failed to address is the empirical evidence that the Earth's climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be below 2 oC (as explained, for example, here, and here, and here and here)

"...For example, there is no monotonic trend corresponding to the CO2 trend in the temperature data..."

Why should one expect such a thing co2isotevil? Attribution of warming trends requires an effort at a realistic assessment of all the contributions to temporal changes in surface temperature. This has been done in detail by scientists. Some useful examples are Lean and Rind (2008) and Hansen et al (2005).

"However the orbital properties of the Earth aren't very relevant to persistent changes in forcings that are fundamental to determination of climate sensitivities. That's because the orbitally-paced sinusoidal insolation occurs more rapidly than the various elements of the climate system can equilibrate with the changing forcings, and thus average out on time scales relevant to establishing the Earth's equilibrium response to forcing."

Who is claiming the changing seasonal hemispheric and orbital changing forcings don't average out? They do. The point is that as the forcings change, the climate responds fairly quickly via a significant change in air and ocean water temperature.

Are you going to argue that the physics of the oceans are different globally then they are hemispherically? If so, under what law of thermodynamics do smaller, slower increases in thermal forcing take longer than larger, faster increases in thermal forcing to raise the temperature of water to equilibrium?

@RW1: "Are you going to argue that the physics of the oceans are different globally then they are hemispherically?"

Strawman argument fallacy. That is not at all what Chris is arguing. What he's saying is that, because seasonal changes happen in a relatively rapid cycle (and are balanced between the hemispheres, one being warmer while the other one is cooler), there is not much feedback to the forcing. With CO2, however, the increase is gradual, over decades, which triggers feedbacks that are little affected by seasonal change.

Even the direct effect of CO2 is delayed compared to the direct energy transfer caused by insolation. CO2-induced warming takes longer as energy travels back an forth between the GG molecules and the ground.

All these comments, and neither RW1 or co2isnotevil (true, it isn't, but increasing it is warming our world) have managed to present a convincing case against a climate sensitivity of 3C.

The exponential approach to equilibrium is quantified as A*exp(-t/tau), where tau is the time constant, A is the equilibrium value and t is time. Exp(-1) is about 0.37 and 5 time constants, exp(-5), is greater than 0.99. This form of approach to equilibrium arises as the solution to the first order LTI describing the thermodynamic climate system. The related response to a sinusoidal stimulus like exp(-jwt) is a delayed sinusoid whose delay is equal to the time constant for periods larger than 4 or 5 time constants.

If we filter the ISCCP data to only those grids over ocean, there is still 1.5C or more yearly variability globally and more than 4C hemispheric specific temperature variability. Equatorial water temperatures are relatively constant, so there is little to no flux between the 2 hemispheres and hemispheric specific heating and cooling tells us exactly how big the planets thermal mass is on a per hemisphere basis.

You state that the climate system responds slower than seasonal change. This is clearly wrong because if it was the case, seasonal change would not happen! Just like a capacitor resists a change in voltage, a thermal mass resists a change in temperature and the equations describing this response are nearly identical and the time constants have the same physical significance.

Venus has the property you claim relative to the surface, but this is because it's thermal mass is energized CO2 above the surface, while the Earth's thermal mass is primarily ground state water below the surface. While the Venusian 3 degree axis (177 accounting for retrograde rotation) is less than ours, there are no seasonal differences at the surface or even differences across latitudes. There are not even differences between night and day even though the Venusian day is about as long as our year. This is what you would expect from a system with a time constant on the order of years to decades. The Earth behaves in a manner consistent with a short time constant.

Regarding the amount of ice that would need to melt to cause a 3C rise, all else being equal, nearly half of the difference between the min and max seasonal snow pack would need to melt. There's just not this much additional ice to melt during the summer! This arises as the incremental reflectivity from the full winter snow pack has about an 7C effect on the surface temperature. This is why the global average temperature in January is 3C cooler, rather than 4C warmer as the increased insolation at perihelion would suggest. This all works out quite nicely when you consider the measured reflectivity variability seen in the ISCCP data.

Yes, for each of these, there will be either a direct response to a sinusoidal forcing cycle (seasons or orbital distance) or, if the forcing is shorter than the response time, a delayed sinusoid - with amplitude decreasing as the response becomes more multiples of the forcing. Note that these responses for different feedbacks will likely not be in reinforcing phase, and may cancel out/reinforce from time to time.

On the other hand, a steadily changing trend (such as CO2 forcing) will not cause a sinusoidal response in feedback, but a driven change in the baseline (with weather variability making it non-monotonic). And that's what we see on all of these feedbacks for the CO2 forcing, as evidenced by the temperature record and other data.

co2isnotevil - An additional note on these various forcings and feedbacks:

Statistical significance in temperature measurements requires 25-30 years of temperature records to establish a trend, based on the inherent variability of weather (PDO, AO, other influences, clouds, volcanoes, etc.).

Your delayed sinusoid feedback responses to cyclic forcings of one year cyclic duration will be completely lost in the noise of the climate. Longer term changes such as CO2 increases and Milankovitch cycles will not.

Rw1 - sorry for taking a long time to respond but only intermittent access to internet.

"Explain to me how the surface, whose temperature is directly tied to the total power flux via Stefan-Boltzman, is going to 'know' the difference from increased power from Sun or CO2?"

It doesnt, I agree, but as I said, 1W/m2 as global annual average has a very different temporal, spatial and spectral distribution for sun versus CO2. The direct radiative balance is obviously maintained but to consider a simplification, 1W/m2 could by say 2W/m2 in one hemisphere and 0 in the other. The temperature response for radiative balance is 0.6 in one hemisphere, 0 in the other still for global average of 0.3.

Sensitivity it about feedbacks though. The milankovich forcing driving the ice age cycle is tiny as global average, but the large forcing at 65N over long time delivers feedbacks enough to drive the cycle. The identical forcing at 65S does not - far less scope for feedbacks in the south.
You cant do the sensitivity by back-of-the-envelope stuff. You have to run the physics and see how it pans out.

"It doesnt, I agree, but as I said, 1W/m2 as global annual average has a very different temporal, spatial and spectral distribution for sun versus CO2. The direct radiative balance is obviously maintained but to consider a simplification, 1W/m2 could by say 2W/m2 in one hemisphere and 0 in the other. The temperature response for radiative balance is 0.6 in one hemisphere, 0 in the other still for global average of 0.3."

The radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 from a doubling of CO2 is a global average just like average solar input is. How do you think each is calculated? Are you forgetting that the Sun is pretty much the only source of energy in the system?

"Sensitivity it about feedbacks though. The milankovich forcing driving the ice age cycle is tiny as global average, but the large forcing at 65N over long time delivers feedbacks enough to drive the cycle. The identical forcing at 65S does not - far less scope for feedbacks in the south."

We're not due for another Milankovitch cycle for long time. Plus, it's mainly the change in the distribution of the energy from the Sun that is apparently enough to overcome what appears to be a very strong net negative feedback operating on the system.

Yes, I understand there are many time constants, but the one that matters, relative to the measured response, is that which quantifies the response of the thermal mass of the planet.

Also, the 25 years of data I used was to extract the response, from which the consequence of a change can be predicted and is not constrained by your requirement of 25-30 years to ascertain a trend, even though the data set is long enough. In this case, extending the data set results in the inclusion of the longer term effects as they affect the response.

The response to a linear change can also be extracted from the LTI by setting the forcing function to a ramp from which the steady state solution can be solved.

RW1 - how did you think it was calculated? There are empirical constraints on sensitivity, but the numbers come from running the physics and seeing what the number comes out to be. Actually, the mean is 3.2C, not sure where you get 3.7. Its an output of model, global average of the temperature that accompanies model run with a doubling of CO2. To see "how it pans out", see the various model estimates but read that section of the IPCC report to understand why they vary.

Milankovich cycles are always operating, but the point of my explanation was to show that you cannot ignore spatial distribution of forcing in calculating feedback. True for Milankovich, true for CO2.

I dont understand your comment about sun being "only source of energy in the system". Any suggesting otherwise? GHG are about impediments to surface radiative efficiency and changes to surface temperature.

Whoops sorry. I realise some confusion. 3.7W/m2 is radiative forcing (no feedback) for GHGs. Without feedbacks that's 1 degree of temperature rise - and this is regardless of type of forcing. However, this article is about sensitivity = the surface temperature rise associated with doubling of CO2. The feedbacks are what change 1 degree change for radiative balance to 3.2 degrees of actual warming. And yes, you have to run the physics to sort out the feedbacks so you can take into account the temporal, spatial, and spectral differences in the types of forcings.

Except, as pointed out in a number of prior comments, neither RW1 nor you accept the fact that there has already been greater temperature change (and a greater rate of temperature change) than your so-called sensitivity predicts. So you do not have the full response in your model. Perhaps it's time for a new model.

Let's boil it down to essentials: You show that instantaneous magnitudes of seasonal heating/cooling and other short-term variations far outweigh the GHE. Everyone else understands that those changes average to 0 over the course of the year (or cycle) and therefore contribute nothing to the long term warming trend. In fact, nothing you've presented contributes to any long term warming. And yet you insist that you have calculated a 'sensitivity', so you must accept that there is long term warming. Thus we arrive at a contradiction between your model and your stated position.

I suggest the two of you do the homework (off line, as we do not need to see it played out here) to resolve this basic internal contradiction.

That is a wholly false contention. Why did you link to a unreferenced chart? What source data did you use? What atmospheric level? Why did you convert the data to absolute temperature rather than leave it in its native temperature anomaly format?

Do you know the difference between an anomaly plot and a temperature plot? This is a temperature plot.
Notice the scales on the left. The actual data spans more than a 5C range and has no averaging applied. An anomaly plot shows the difference in the monthly average to the expected monthly average for that month. The limits of this are only about 1C over the same interval. In my plots, the dotted black line is the running 12-month average.

The actual data from Nasa looks like this,
Notice the discontinuity around 2001? This is when NOAA-14 was replaced by NOAA-16 and baseline shifted by about 2C and which I have corrected in my data. The calibration error would be misinterpreted in an anomaly plot as an anomalous warming trend, but is actually representative of a data anomaly. This is my issue with anomaly analysis. You can't distinguish between a data anomaly and an anomalous trend.

@George White: where did you get these graphs? They do not seem to agree with any temperature graphs out there (including NOAA's). Perhaps you made them yourself, and have failed to spot an error in your calculations?

Why not have your theories published and peer-reviewed, if you are so adamant about being right?

The data comes from isccp.giss.nasa.gov and I plotted the graphs from my climate simulation tool, CSIM, which integrates hierarchically gridded modeling with verification from satellite data, paleo data and a whole lot more, including replicating much of the ISCCP tool chain for processing weather satellite images where I use HITRAN 2008 driven 3-d atmospheric modeling, rather than the simple heuristics used by ISCCP, for extracting equivalent temperatures from IR brightnesses.

The data in these plots is directly from the ISCCP processed, D2 data set and not from my processed DX data. I only subtracted out the bias in the first plot, although my analysis of the DX data (after recalibration) for months around where NOAA-14 transitions to NOAA-16 validated the profile of the bias. As I said in a deleted post, Rossow privately acknowledged this error and said it would eventually be fixed. For some reason, this rather large error has never been fixed or put in the errata, even though later reported errors have. I first brought this to his attention over 3 years ago. At the time, I even complained that I had seen some people using his data misinterpret the data anomaly as an anomalous warming trend. It's my understanding that many more are using this data now. New data based on 10 km sampling is supposed to be forthcoming, and I have been told that the error should be fixed, but the new data seems to be delayed.

Regarding Biblio's comment. Anomaly analysis increases precision at the expense of accuracy, which is not the right direction to go. The even bigger problem is that you can't discriminate between anomalous data (meaning bad data) and an anomalous trend. The problem here is that the one month big anomaly that arose because of a baseline shift manifests itself as anomalous warming trend.

Regarding publishing. Publishing in a 'legitimate' climate related publication is horribly stacked against anyone going counter to the consensus, that's not to say that I don't have a plan ...

@co2isnotevil: discussing the reliability of measurements (never mind that different measurements provide pretty much the same picture) is off-topic, and belongs in another thread.

Of course, when one makes his own climate simulation tool, one can get all kinds of results. Until your tool has been validated by others, we have now way of knowing how accurate it is.

As for your conspiracy theories on publishing scientific papers, they are the hallmark of the pseudo-scientific quack. If your theory is good, it will stand up on its own. The fact that you have yet to publish it makes me think you are simply afraid it will get thoroughly rebutted, and you'd rather keep your very subjective view of the science intact. Sorry.

It is up to you to prove what you claim. Right now, we are all a little skeptical about your claims, and with good reason.

I've seen good papers get completely gutted because the 'peers' who reviewed it didn't like the conclusions. I prefer interactive review with known individuals, rather than the anonymous review often utilized for climate papers. Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus, but it's OK for more accepted mainstream science.

You can bark all you want about the science being settled, but the truth is climate science is the most controversial branch of science around. BTW, I never called it a conspiracy, you did. If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate.

I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'. Science isn't about gut feelings, but about logic, data and first principles and all of this is turning decidedly against the gut feelings driving climate alarmists.

Relative to what my climate tool does with the ISCCP satellite data. all I'm doing is plotting the NASA data. And as I told you, the errors I pointed out have been acknowledged by Rossow, who is one of the principles of the ISCCP project and wrote much of their SW. BTW, I had to do a lot of reverse engineering of the error before Rossow would even acknowledge the problem, but he finally did admit to the programming error that led to this problem. He response was, 'Well, you can't use ISCCP data for identifying trends'. The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years.

Precision does no good when the trend you are looking for is smaller than the data uncertainty.

Consider a model that says 2+2 = 5 +/- 1. This is technically correct since 2+2=4 and that's within the uncertainty. Can you see what happens when you increase precision without increasing accuracy? You end up with a result like 2+2 = 5 +/- 0.25, which while more precise, is no more accurate than the first result and in fact the real answer is outside the uncertainty of the result.

"If you want to use that word, perhaps a inadvertent conspiracy of flawed group think would be more appropriate."

Ah, so scientists aren't part of a large conspiracy, they're just idiots who are swayed by groupthink instead of logic - except for you, of course!

Give us a break...

"I have to believe that scientists pushing the catastrophic point of view must believe what they are saying. The problem is they don't have enough information to know for sure and the reality of the situation is they are just guessing based on a 'gut feeling'."

Incorrect. There is ample evidence that AGW is real, and happening. Satellite measurements of OLR is just one of them.

As I said before the burden of proof is on you, and you have failed. Discrediting honest, hard-working scientists to paint yourself as the only voice of truth isn't helping. In fact, it's showing your true colors, and they're quite ugly.

"The reason seems clear since when you fix these issues, no warming trend is observed and if anything, there's been a small cooling trend over the last 10 years."

Again, that seems very unlikely since *every* other record shows a warming trend. What's more likely, that everyone else is wrong and that this single instance really means the opposite of what it's supposed to mean, or that everyone is right, notwithstanding a single point of measurement was inaccurate?

I'm sorry, but at this point there is no reason to believe your unreviewed theories over the accepted science - and it is, in fact, accepted. The only reason it is "controversial" is that Energy companies such as Koch Industries have funnelled millions into contrarian groups (and that's no conspiracy, we have a clear money trail).

Problems with this dataset have been noted in the peer-reviewed literature since at least 2000, and the specific problem you cite was even mentioned in the Trenberth paper that was discussed earlier in this thread. So please, drop the "crusader for truth" act. You haven't uncovered some secret flaw in the mainstream science. As you can see - and contrary to your insinuations - the mainstream science is perfectly capable of applying critical thought to its own claims.

You also neglected to mention (or didn't realize) that the ISCCP data isn't used to construct any of the standard global temperature reconstructions. These come from entirely different microwave sensors and are produced by the RSS and UAH, one of which is led by your fellow skeptic Roy Spencer. The ISCCP data is primarily used to evaluate cloud data, which is evident from their own project overview.

>Anonymous review just doesn't work when the topic is controversial and your position goes against the consensus

Applying greater scrutiny to those who oppose the consensus is precisely how it's supposed to work. It follows from the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and prevents solid science from becoming obscured by a constant influx of fringe theories. Every great revision of scientific consensus in the modern era has had to overcome the same difficulties, why should your ideas receive any less scrutiny? Really, your entire criticism of the peer review process is nothing more than a subtle Galileo fallacy.

Honestly, it is very admirable that you are seeking to produce your own analysis, but if you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously you are going to have to subject them to a bit of rigor. That you would expect otherwise suggests a very inflated sense of self-importance.

How about this one-sided moderation, Huh? You made my point about one sided review ...

Response: [Daniel Bailey] And your point is...? Only comments in violation of the Comments Policy get deleted. Stay on topic, accept responsibility for the content of your comments and bring a strong logically constructed argument with links to peer-reviewed supporting sources to lend credibility. Blaming moderators, being off-topic and saying inflammatory things about others mandates moderator intervention. That's life.

Lindzen is now posting a few opinion pieces, including this one on GWPF ("The GWPF's primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration"). It's been reposted on WUWT, not surprisingly.

In this piece he states that "the climate's changed before", "it's not bad", "no warming since 1995", "environmental groups gathering power", etc.

The 2010 version of L&C is available here, if you wish to read it. No changes were made in terms of extra-tropical heat exchange - they're apparently still using the 2001 model. They have stated that Pinatubo has an effect on forcings, though, which does address one of the Trenberth 2009 objections.

More from Spencer, who appears to be doing for his blog the sort of data-fiddling that Statistics 101 teaches against. I wonder if he's submitting this to a journal?

"....The “best fit” I got after about an hour of fiddling around with the inputs is represented by the blue curve in the above chart. Importantly, the assumed feedback parameter (5.5) is solidly in “negative feedback” territory....."

You know how to find it: ~2011/01/update-further-evidence-of-low-climate-sensitivity-from-nasas-aqua-satellite/

Lindzen and Choi, after having been rejected by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has managed to get published in Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

I'll note that Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences has an impact factor of 0.355, as opposed to the only number I could find for Energy and Environment, 0.42 (4 citations a year).

The reviewers comments from NAS are about what could have been expected; failure to perform sensitivity analysis on time periods used, failure to address extra-tropical heat transport, insufficient information to replicate the work, etc.